Subject: The Purpose of Telling the Lies has been Accomplished - msg#00066

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Progressive News & Views (since 1982)
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

-- Lies that Fix the Excuse to Grab Our Oil Under Their Sand --

Why should we assume the United States would use solid evidence which is
always capable of being verified? To the contrary, the allegations were
just, claims that push a right-wing agenda and are not capable of being
verified nor is verification a realistic expectation with anything coming
out of the White House.

It is often merely enough to make the claims. People will believe them
because the claims will be made to appear believable and if you tell a lie
enough times it stops being a lie and it does become believable, even if
it is a lie and when it is discovered that it was a lie, it doesn't matter
anymore. Do you really think most people care that Rove outed Valarie
Plame? Do you really think most people really care about the "Downing
Street Memos" which exposed the Bush regime for their lies and fixing the
intelligence to match their war plans?

Even when the public finds out or figures out that it was a lie, it simply
doesn't matter anymore -- because the PURPOSE of TELLING THE LIE HAS BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED.

An excuse commonly given why evidence cannot be verified is that it comes
from a "secret source" and to reveal the source would put that a "secret"
source at risk and perhaps even cause his or her death even though that
never stopped the Bush war criminals from disclosing secrets, from outing
a CIA agent, even though it might cause the death of informants that agent
was handling. None of that matters to these war criminals.

The allegations are clear fabrications and reveal a sloppiness and
avoidance of truth that one would not expect given the high degree of
sophistication and technology of the wealthiest country in the world, but
so what if it is sloppy? They don't care. The purpose was to tell the lie
in the first place and by the time anyone figured out they have been had
it doesn't matter anymore. The damage has been done and the lie is
believed by enough who never hear the truth and many don't care. Their
disdain for the left, their hatred for liberals and for Democrats has been
proven to them and they're satisfied, even though it was all a lie.

FAKED EVIDENCE

"U.S. officials released the infamous videotape showing bin Laden speaking
with a Saudi guest in an effort to erase any lingering doubts that bin
Laden was behind the Sept 11 attacks. "I don't know how they can be in
denial after they see this tape," said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.),
vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on critics of the
tape." (Azam al-Qari, "Trying to Win the Public Relations War"
http://www.IslamOnline.net/, - 28 December 2001)

Videotape Contradicts Previous Statements

"The videotape that purports bin Laden admitting his "guilt" of destroying
buildings in the U.S. contradicts all previous bin Laden pronouncements
and the Taliban about their innocence. Bin Laden is under 50 and has never
been credited with bouts of forgetfulness. Obviously, he must be
remembering that he had previously videotaped statements on Al-Jazeera
that he was not responsible for the U.S. bombings. And the American and
Western press has painted bin Laden as a skillful manipulator of public
opinion, who has always taken great care to tailor his message to his
audience." (ibid)

"The video, which was allegedly found in a house in Jalalabad,
Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials, carries a date stamp of Nov. 9.
That was the day the Taliban lost control of the northern city of Mazar-e
Sharif, the first in a string of defeats for the party that had sheltered
bin Laden. The Taliban surrendered the capital, Kabul, on Nov. 12." (ibid)

"It seems hard to believe that a marked person who was not serving as a
boardroom bound general but a fighter in the trenches had the time to play
host to a visitor in such a calm setting that even a video recording was
arranged. The U.S. war establishment and the Western media have amply
explained the magnitude of the U.S. munitions such as the "daisy cutters"
and multi-ton bombs. It seems improbable that such a relaxed meeting was
possible when such intense blasting was going on in the vicinity. Bruce
Hoffman, a terrorism expert with the Washington office of Rand Corp., a
California-based research organization, remarked, `Despite the fact that
the air campaign was well underway when this was filmed, he still seems to
feel very safe.'" (ibid)

When the Government insists it is authentic, you really have to ask: IS IT
REALLY GENUINE?

"Bush and other officials insisted that it was authentic and that the
government had verified to its authenticity before releasing. However,
within a week, this claim lay in dust when it was told that the Saudi man
shown talking with bin Laden about the attacks against the United States
on a videotape is not a religious scholar, as originally thought, but a
former anti-Soviet guerrilla in Afghanistan and a longtime acquaintance of
bin Laden." (ibid)

"U.S. and Saudi officials initially identified the man, who is shown
chatting amicably with bin Laden and comparing notes on the results of the
Sept. 11 hijackings, as Suleiman al Ghamdi, the head of a small mosque who
was once imprisoned by Saudi authorities for his radical views." (ibid)

"However, ranking Saudi authorities relented and said that the man is
actually Khaled al-Harbi, who met bin Laden during the war against the
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s and later fought on behalf
of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya. Al-Harbi, who lost both his legs in
combat, left Saudi Arabia 10 days after the Sept. 11 attacks to travel to
Afghanistan, said Saudi officials." (ibid)

"The question is that if Al-Harbi was not a sheikh but merely a dedicated
fighter, then why was bin Laden shown addressing him in the manner of a
religious scholar. Perhaps the video doctors got the wrong footage to do
their manipulation and the Saudis spilled the beans by revealing the man's
real identity." (ibid)

"The United States has repeatedly informed the public about its
sophisticated communications equipment, its CIA and FBI personnel, the
special U.S. and British military units, and the hordes seeking the $25
million booty being used as a reward for the capture of bin Laden. The
question arises that if a legless person could get to bin Laden, why could
the world's most sophisticated force not reach there." (ibid)

"It was not thus surprising that al-Jazeera aired an interview with a
London-based expert on Islamic groups, Hani Subai, who pronounced the tape
a crude `fabrication.'" (ibid)

"`It is shameful that the strongest nation in the world should be
presenting this tape as proof,' said Subai, arguing that bin Laden looked
much "healthier" in the video than in recent pictures, with less gray
hair. He said the decision to air the tape showed that the Bush
administration had "no evidence" against Mr. Bin Laden." (ibid)

I believe we can honestly and with confident assurance assume that Osama
bin Laden, if he didn't order the attacks, it was at least his network
which carried it out even if the evidence which the administration used to
establish that connection was shabby to say the least -- and now there is
a body of evidence, which is just as efficacious as any evidence presented
by the Bush war criminals that not only was the intelligence fixed to
support the plan but the attack on the World Towers was also fixed and
carried off with knowledge of the Saudis and George W. Bush who
orchestrated it. What do you think? And who do you believe?

It appears that way anyway and it it would seem that the country which has
the best technology and the most money would make a better and more
convincing presentation but the bottom line is it really doesn't matter.
It happened and enough believe the story disseminated by the Bush regime
so it doesn't really matter how sloppy their lies might be. It just had to
be convincing enough to raise the spectre of terrorism in a world where
the excuse was enough to grab the oil under the sand in Iraq.

Hank Roth




-----
/ o o \
===OO=====OO==========================
admin: socrates@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
======================================
To subscribe/unsub to fightback, send
subscribe or unsub in subject line to:
fightback-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
======================================
http://g0lem.net/ -- Fight the Right!
======================================